X Corp. has launched a federal lawsuit to prevent a startup from seizing the “Twitter” brand. The legal filing, submitted on December 16, 2025, targets Operation Bluebird. This Virginia-based startup recently petitioned to cancel X’s trademarks. They argue that Elon Musk abandoned the Twitter name after his 2023 rebrand to X.

The case focuses on a central question of modern business. Does a company lose its rights if it publicly “kills” a multi-billion dollar brand?

The Move to Reclaim a Discarded Brand

Operation Bluebird is led by a team of legal experts. One key figure is Stephen Coates. He previously served as Twitter’s associate director of trademarks. His involvement brings unique expertise to the challenge.

The startup believes X Corp. has legally abandoned its legacy. Under U.S. law, a trademark is abandoned if use is discontinued with no intent to resume. Operation Bluebird points to Musk’s 2023 statement as evidence. At the time, Musk posted that the company would “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”

The startup intends to launch a new social network at “twitter.new”. They have already invited users to reserve their old handles. Their website reports that over 145,000 people have signed up. They aim to restore the “town square” experience they feel was lost during the transition to X.

X Corp. Defense Strategy

X Corp. responded with a lawsuit in a Delaware federal court. The company asserts that the Twitter brand is still “alive and well.” They argue the brand is “not ripe for the picking.” X Corp. accuses the startup of a “brazen attempt to steal” its property.

The defense for X Corp. rests on three key points:

1. Direct Traffic: Millions of users still visit twitter.com, which currently redirects to X.
2. Cultural Use: The public and businesses still use terms like “Twitter” and “tweets” daily.
3. Active Ownership: X Corp. claims it still enforces these trademarks in business contracts.

“A rebrand is not an abandonment of trademark rights,” the lawsuit states. X Corp. is seeking monetary damages. They also want a court order to stop the startup from using any Twitter-related branding.

Legal Precedents and Challenges

Legal experts are watching the case with interest. It could set a new standard for corporate rebranding. Usually, companies maintain “skeleton” uses of old brands to prevent others from taking them.

However, trademark law is very specific. To keep a brand, an owner must show “bona fide use” in commerce. Operation Bluebird argues that removing the bird logo from offices and app icons proves X has stopped using the marks.

X Corp. recently updated its Terms of Service. Effective January 2026, the terms explicitly state that users have no right to use the X or Twitter names. This update appears to be a defensive move against the startup’s claims.

Consumer Confusion vs. Brand Evolution

X Corp. argues that a rival named Twitter would cause “consumer confusion.” This is a primary test in trademark law. If two different companies use the same name, the public might not know which is which. X Corp. claims this would harm its business.

Operation Bluebird counters this by citing X Corp.’s own marketing. For two years, X has told the world it is not Twitter. The startup believes the public can distinguish between the new “X” and their proposed “Twitter” revival. They plan to focus on stricter moderation and a return to the original microblogging format.

The Path Ahead

The dispute is moving through two legal channels:

• The USPTO: The trademark office will decide if the marks should be canceled based on non-use.
• Federal Court: The Delaware court will rule on whether the startup’s actions infringe on X’s current rights.

If X Corp. loses, it would be a major blow. The Twitter name still carries immense global recognition. For now, the “blue bird” is at the center of a high-stakes legal tug-of-war. X Corp. wants to keep the brand locked away. Operation Bluebird is fighting to set it free.

In a significant victory for established brands protecting their intellectual property, the Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals challenging a 2019 interim injunction that bars the use of the mark “POWER FLEX” in footwear products. The ruling reinforces Bata India Limited’s exclusive rights to its iconic “POWER” trademark, highlighting the risks of adopting similar marks even in slightly different product segments.

A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the single-judge order from 2019, which had initially restrained Leayan Global Private Limited – the company behind the popular Red Chief footwear brand – from using “POWER FLEX” pending the outcome of the main trademark infringement suit.

The dispute dates back to 2019 when Bata, a household name in India’s footwear market, filed a suit alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. Bata claimed that Leayan’s adoption of “POWER FLEX” for its leather shoes diluted the distinctiveness and goodwill associated with Bata’s “POWER” brand, primarily used for sports and canvas footwear since the 1970s.

Bata has multiple trademark registrations for “POWER,” both as a standalone word and in combination with devices or other terms. The company argued that “POWER” had acquired secondary meaning through decades of exclusive use, massive sales figures, and endorsements by sports personalities, making it strongly associated with Bata in consumers’ minds.

Leayan, on the other hand, contended that “POWER” is a common laudatory term meaning strength or durability, unsuitable for monopoly. They further argued that “POWER FLEX” was always used alongside their house mark “RED CHIEF,” targeted leather footwear rather than sports shoes, and posed no real confusion risk. Leayan also proposed undertakings to limit usage and avoid prominence to “POWER.”

The Division Bench rejected these defenses, finding a prima facie case of confusion. The court noted that “POWER” forms the dominant and essential part of “POWER FLEX,” potentially leading average consumers – who may not scrutinize differences in sub-categories like leather versus canvas – to believe the products originate from or are affiliated with Bata.

Importantly, the judges observed that even if “POWER FLEX” appears on packaging with “RED CHIEF,” its standalone use inside shoes could still mislead buyers. The court also dismissed arguments on delay or honest concurrent use, emphasizing Bata’s vigilance in opposing similar marks over the years.

However, the bench allowed Leayan to continue using the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER,” viewing it as descriptive of material quality rather than a trademark, provided no undue emphasis is given to “POWER.”

This decision underscores the strength of well-established trademarks in India, even when they incorporate common words, if long-term use has built unique goodwill. Legal experts say it serves as a cautionary tale for competitors entering crowded markets: adding suffixes like “FLEX” to a dominant registered mark may not suffice to avoid infringement claims, particularly in related goods like footwear variants.

The underlying suit for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs remains pending before the single judge. Leayan may explore further appeals, but the upheld interim order maintains the status quo in Bata’s favor for now.

The ruling aligns with broader judicial trends protecting brand equity in India’s growing consumer market, where established players like Bata continue to dominate through rigorous IP enforcement.

The world of professional wrestling is buzzing. Former WWE Champion Jinder Mahal, whose real name is Raj Dhesi, has launched a major legal challenge against his former employer, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).

Dhesi is fighting for ownership of the in-ring persona, “The Maharaja.”

The Heart of the Battle

This dispute reveals a critical industry-wide conflict. Who truly owns a wrestler’s identity? Is it the performer who brings the character to life? Or is it the multi-million dollar corporation that employs and markets them?

WWE holds the trademark for “The Maharajah.” They secured this ownership in 2017.

Raj Dhesi contests this claim. He asserts he developed and used the “Maharaja” name as early as 2015. This was before the company made its official trademark claim. Dhesi argues the character belongs to him. He insists the persona is his creation, not a product of WWE’s creative team.

Legal Action Escalates

Dhesi first tried to register his own trademark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected his attempts. They cited a “likelihood of confusion” with WWE’s existing ownership.

Dhesi refused to back down. He changed tactics. On December 4, 2025, Dhesi submitted a formal petition. This filing asks the USPTO to cancel WWE’s trademark entirely. Dhesi accuses the company of obtaining the trademark by “wrongful means.”

WWE must now prepare a defense. The wrestling giant has until February 3, 2026, to respond to Dhesi’s petition.

Industry Consequences Loom

The outcome of this case holds massive implications. It threatens to overturn decades of established wrestling business practices.

For years, WWE has kept tight control. They rarely allow talent to use their character names outside the company. If Dhesi wins, this legal precedent could have widespread effects.

• Talent Empowerment: A victory could encourage other former wrestlers. They might sue to reclaim names and personas they helped develop.
• IP Redefinition: The challenge forces WWE and the entire industry to rethink character ownership. It may redefine the line between talent creative rights and corporate intellectual property (IP).

Since his WWE release in April 2024, Dhesi has continued to use the name. He performs as “The Maharaja” on the independent circuit. This ongoing usage strengthens his claim. He aims to prove that the identity remains his own, separate from the corporation.

The industry watches closely. The final ruling will impact how wrestling companies manage their most valuable assets: their performers and their characters.